Love v. US Dept Labor ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-1454
    BETTY L. LOVE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; MADELINE
    O'BRIEN; ANTHONY SANCHEZ; CARY LEVANTHAL;
    DUANE A. CEASAR; DEBBIE ANDERSON; PATRICIA D.
    COLEMAN; MABLE E. MACKALL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
    96-3554-S)
    Submitted:   August 14, 1997              Decided:   August 20, 1997
    Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior
    Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Betty L. Love, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her
    civil action for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and the district court's
    opinion and find no reversible error. To the extent Appellant
    alleges a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the district
    court lacked jurisdiction because she failed to file an adminis-
    trative claim with the appropriate federal agency. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2675
    (a) (1994); Ahmed v. United States, 
    30 F.3d 514
    , 516 (4th
    Cir. 1994) (requirement of filing an administrative claim is juris-
    dictional and may not be waived). To the extent Appellant alleges
    a claim under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), the
    district court lacked jurisdiction to review such claims. See 
    5 U.S.C. § 8128
    (b) (1994); Hanauer v. Reich, 
    82 F.3d 1304
    , 1307 (4th
    Cir. 1996) (absent the agency exceeding its scope of authority,
    judicial review of FECA claims is barred).
    Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because
    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
    terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-1454

Filed Date: 8/20/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021